If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Mobile in a sense of "people want quickfire games they can play on the bus/whilst waiting in a queue" - I've yet to see someone pull an iPad out in the Post Office (but regularly see people playing Angry Birds on their phone) for example.

Originally Posted by soldant

Hardware keyboards aren't dying out, I don't know why you think that.

On phones - they most definately are a dying idea - and rightly so because they're a bloody daft idea :)

Originally Posted by soldant

And I don't really understand the relevance of the rest of your post or how the Ouya solves any issues you're raising.

My point is that there IS a market for the existing games to be played in the home/on a TV and most of the argument against it here is based on snobbery - the fact that these games are seen as 'inferior' somehow.

The idea that Ouya/etc. would only have trivial little mobile distraction games isn't true now and will become far less true if these devices sell any significant quantity!!

My point is that there IS a market for the existing games to be played in the home/on a TV and most of the argument against it here is based on snobbery - the fact that these games are seen as 'inferior' somehow.

The idea that Ouya/etc. would only have trivial little mobile distraction games isn't true now and will become far less true if these devices sell any significant quantity!!

Oy... nobody here is being "snobbish" except for the guy who is claiming he knows more than Valve and that PC gaming is dying or whatever you are rambling on about.

The games are not (all :p) inferior. They are different. I love Draw Something and many of my friends love Angry Birds. And you are right, there is crossover with the PC: I used to play a game with catapults and castles that was almost exactly the same as Angry Birds. IT was a flash game :p

But the thing is, how small is that market? And is that market worth all the baggage? What is more cost effective/logical: Port the VERY small percentage of mobile games that were designed with traditional inputs in mind anyway (which I call a no-no in the first place...), or just embrace the entire OS and try to shoehorn traditional inputs in anyway?

And you are right, the ouya and what not will have "real" games: OnLive :p. And I would wager money that any successful "real" game would get ported to (or, more likely, FROM, in a drastically scaled down manner akin to how the Wii was treated) the consoles and PC anyway.

And right now, the VERY few exclusives for each platform (not counting PC, we are special) are from developers who have VERY strong "loyalty" to the console company (to the point that they are effectively a part of MS/Sony/Nintendo) that has been grown over the years. That and "indie" games being sold on the PSN/Live/Whatever Nintendo has. Breaking into the market needs something "unique" to your console.

Ouya and the miniandroid thing both would mostly be limited to exclusive "indie" games. And if those truly DO become super-popular, you can be certain Sony and MS will be contacting them to work with them to port it to their console anyway.

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

Mobile in a sense of "people want quickfire games they can play on the bus/whilst waiting in a queue" - I've yet to see someone pull an iPad out in the Post Office (but regularly see people playing Angry Birds on their phone) for example.

Which basically just demonstrates that the Ouya is heading for disaster when its claim to fame is that it plays mobile games on a TV...

Originally Posted by trjp

On phones - they most definately are a dying idea - and rightly so because they're a bloody daft idea :)

Oh, on phones? Fair enough, I thought you meant in general. However hardware keyboards are far and away better than software or touch keyboards - they're more precise and give tactile feedback about what you're hitting. It's easy to accidentally hit the wrong key on a software keyboard - you're just touching the same flat surface all the time. You can feel the keys on a physical keyboard, you know when you're hitting between two keys and you can feel which one you pressed. I don't know anyone who prefers a software keyboard to a hardware keyboard. But on phones you're right and I agree, it's better to make the screen bigger or the phone lighter/thinner by relying on a software keyboard.

Originally Posted by trjp

My point is that there IS a market for the existing games to be played in the home/on a TV and most of the argument against it here is based on snobbery - the fact that these games are seen as 'inferior' somehow. The idea that Ouya/etc. would only have trivial little mobile distraction games isn't true now and will become far less true if these devices sell any significant quantity!!

Who is making that argument? You're referring to elitism from the GLORIOUS PC MASTER RACE or something but I'm not seeing it. The criticism is that it's trying to take mobile games and put them on a TV. Most of us who don't see much hope for the console are pointing out that the best part of the mobile games is that they're mobile. Take that away, and what do you have? As for "trivial little mobile distraction games"... the hardware isn't particularly robust, so there will be limits placed on what sort of games they can manage, but I'd suggest that that's the market they're going after.

This thread is becoming childish with people twisting stuff around for the sake of making an argument,building massive strawmen and playing the ad-hominem game - no point in discussing anything with people like that, go play the pun game on the main site instead eh?

There is snobbery too - about a gaming device which might not offer people here what THEY think gaming should be. People unable to realise that they are not the only customers for "gaming" - indeed identifying your customers will be a key requirement here (just as Onlive didn't).

I've no idea if Ouya or anything like it will be successful - I suspect there's an opportunity but as ever it's a limited window (in the way that the Wii had a limited window of popularity - which lasted at least 2 years and made Nintendo billions).

I for one welcome out new mobile overlords tho - you should too, come out of the bedroom and put down the flight stick ;)

This thread is becoming childish with people twisting stuff around for the sake of making an argument,building massive strawmen and playing the ad-hominem game - no point in discussing anything with people like that, go play the pun game on the main site instead eh?

Oh the irony...

twisting stuff around: Selective quoting of one of my posts in an attempt to attack me
twisting stuff around for the sake of making an argument: Your repeated claims that certain things are dying that you then have to make VERY specific
building massive strawmen: Your arguments that PC gaming are dying and whatever else you were spouting. Oh, and that we are all snobs who are afraid of it or whatever in an attempt to avoid addressing the very serious concerns that have been raised
ad-hominem game: You basically calling everyone a "snob" and selectively quoted one of my posts in an attempt to discredit me :p

There is snobbery too - about a gaming device which might not offer people here what THEY think gaming should be. People unable to realise that they are not the only customers for "gaming" - indeed identifying your customers will be a key requirement here (just as Onlive didn't).

THe problem is trjp, you haven't actually been able to make an argument for a sizeable userbase that WOULD want said device.

And actually, I think Onlive did a great job of identifying their customers. People who want to play the latest and "greatest" games on their older systems. And, as of late, people who want to do that on their mobile devices. Is it for everyone? No. But the investment the user has to make is just the price of the game, and they semi-regularly have decent sales. They do have a console (that they basically gave away with certain game purchases), but the primary distribution method is still zero-cost to the user. Ouya and this require a monetary investment to even try (admittedly, only 100 dollars)

It isn't "snobbery". Hell, the fact that both ouya and magic flashy stick are going to be heavily dependent on indie gaming is soemthing that would give most people here a hard-on. It is just that we have very serious concerns about WHY said device is being made. It is a substantially weaker device which requires games to be ported/made from scratch, and the OS it runs is designed with an entirely different interface in mind. And the only defense you have lobbied is "People want to play mobile games at home" (to which we say "Yeah, and they sure can't sit on the couch with their tablet/phone. No siree bob") and "You guys are all snobs".

I for one welcome out new mobile overlords tho - you should too, come out of the bedroom and put down the flight stick ;)

And then, of course, are your repeated random unsubstantiated rants about how PCs are dying and Valve are stupid and what not. You know, the straw men you keep making.

But, in the interest of an argument and being the better man (pneumatic penis!): What is mobile about this? What does ANY of this have to do with mobile gaming outside of using an OS with a giant catalog of games designed for an entirely different interface?

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

This thread is becoming childish with people twisting stuff around for the sake of making an argument

I only see one person doing that - you. I invite you to demonstrate otherwise.

Originally Posted by trjp

There is snobbery too - about a gaming device which might not offer people here what THEY think gaming should be.

Where? Show me where! I'm just not seeing it. I'm seeing people suggesting that the Ouya has a fairly fuzzy market idea which relies on bringing mobile games to a TV, which seems silly for the reasons we've listed. It's not elitism, nobody's commenting on the quality of the games.

Originally Posted by trjp

I for one welcome out new mobile overlords tho - you should too, come out of the bedroom and put down the flight stick ;)

And what does that have to do with anything? You accuse us of building strawmen armies to stand atop the walls and of elitism and twisting arguments around, then you bring that out.

Certain regular posters on these forums are rather much like... well, the regular posters that frequent any forum. They seem to get rather... hmmm... what's a nice way to put it? Stuck in the local closed off viewpoint? Like a small village that never say the "big town" or the "outside world".

It's fine when they are polite, but not too nice when they start getting out pitchforks for these "new folk" and "strangers". :/

I don't see that happening here though. People suggested that the device linked to by the op probably won't do too well for a number of reasons. Then one person says it will but makes a series of unrelated statements and claims they're evidence. Everyone starts poking holes in the logic. He then repeats himself and makes a few more unrelated statements. It all goes around a couple of times and here we are four pages later.

I don't see that happening here though. People suggested that the device linked to by the op probably won't do too well for a number of reasons. Then one person says it will but makes a series of unrelated statements and claims they're evidence. Everyone starts poking holes in the logic. He then repeats himself and makes a few more unrelated statements. It all goes around a couple of times and here we are four pages later.

Also 1400 posts makes trjp a regular.

Oh, I don't deny that the arguments are sound. Just that the tone and name calling seems to explode very quickly in these forums. :(

If someone acts like an idiot on the internet, I find the best way is to carry on as normal or ignore them. No amount of replies or name calling helps.

Besides, I do think at least one of these little devices will make their money back. Probably not get massive, but a mobile phone that's easy to plug into a TV has some market I'm sure, especially if you can remove the sim+LCD and sell if for a very cheap price. It won't be no Xbox or PS3, but it's got a place. It's defiantly a good thing for gaming.

Mobile in a sense of "people want quickfire games they can play on the bus/whilst waiting in a queue" - I've yet to see someone pull an iPad out in the Post Office (but regularly see people playing Angry Birds on their phone) for example.

Because subjective evidence best evidence eh? How many people have tablets solely as their only mobile device? If given the choice, I know which device I'd pull out if I was waiting in line.

Anyways, some little-known company called Nvidia to further muddle the Android waters:

No but seriously who thought that an upgrade treadmill would be a good idea?

Anyone who actually does the math?

Originally Posted by gundato

Actually, the long-run cost is arguable

Lifespan of the PS3: About 6-8 years it seemsCost of PS3 at release: Originally about 500 USDPrice per year: About $72

Lifespan of XBOX 360: 7-9Cost: 400Price per year: 50Price of Live for 8 years: 400Price per year if you wanted multiplayer and the like: About $100

Lifespan of Wii: About 6 years
Cost: 250
Price per Year: 41.6

Keep in mind that all of these prices are assuming "Buy new, play the entire life cycle", but I suspect the rates remain relatively constant at "50-70 dollars per year" even if you buy the console after a price drop (because the life cycle is noticeably shorter).

Thus, a PC needs to have at least a price of 50 dollars per year for it to really compete. Considering that the video card alone will cost you around 100-200 bucks (this is assuming you want to play relatively new titles), that already puts it in the Wii-range of needing to last 6 years without upgrades/a new rig.

There are arguments that games are cheaper on the PC, but most of those involve buying titles a few months after release (which is true on all platforms) or heavy reliance on bundles (which potentially cost more in the long run because it is hard to say no to a bundle :p). And while I can't speak for XBOX or Wii, the PS3 comes with a metric crapton of free titles if you subscribe to PS+. I would posit that, assuming you only buy the games you really want to play and shop sales, PC games end up being cheaper.

And, obviously, if you are content with older titles/systems, both approaches are equally cheap.

So I would say, assuming the same gamer, PC gaming and console gaming are of comparable cost.
Okay, actually, PC gaming probably loses horribly because people buy Alienwares that cost over 1000 dollars, meaning you have to not upgrade for 20 years to reach that 50 dollar sweet-spot... But let's assume an intelligent person who builds their own system and knows how to shop a bargain so as to not want to kill ourselves :p

So the ouya is a bit expensive (100 bucks a year), but with guaranteed backwards compatibility, you can easily get away with buying one every two years. At which point, 50 bucks a year and goodness.

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

Anyone who actually does the math? So the ouya is a bit expensive (100 bucks a year), but with guaranteed backwards compatibility, you can easily get away with buying one every two years. At which point, 50 bucks a year and goodness.

I'm not so much talking about a cost perspective, but more of a "why did this need to happen?" thing. $50 a year is trivial, sure, but given how the Ouya's already going to have to work hard to carve out a market, it seems like a relatively pointless plan designed to keep funding further development. Actually the more I think about it, it seems more like a vote of no confidence in the console - keep releasing new hardware to keep people interested, otherwise we're not going anywhere.

The comparison to a PS3 or Xbox 360 is less relevant, since they're more powerful than the Ouya. The PC is heads and shoulders above everybody and we're on the bleeding edge of technology so it stands to reason that we're going to be expensive. Given that the kind of titles the Ouya are attracting shouldn't be too hardware intensive such an upgrade cycle seems pretty pointless, or it perhaps shows a lack of forethought about what indie devs might want out of the system.

The more I hear, the less confident I become that it'll achieve any long-lasting impact.

I'm not so much talking about a cost perspective, but more of a "why did this need to happen?" thing. $50 a year is trivial, sure, but given how the Ouya's already going to have to work hard to carve out a market, it seems like a relatively pointless plan designed to keep funding further development. Actually the more I think about it, it seems more like a vote of no confidence in the console - keep releasing new hardware to keep people interested, otherwise we're not going anywhere.

The comparison to a PS3 or Xbox 360 is less relevant, since they're more powerful than the Ouya. The PC is heads and shoulders above everybody and we're on the bleeding edge of technology so it stands to reason that we're going to be expensive. Given that the kind of titles the Ouya are attracting shouldn't be too hardware intensive such an upgrade cycle seems pretty pointless, or it perhaps shows a lack of forethought about what indie devs might want out of the system.

The more I hear, the less confident I become that it'll achieve any long-lasting impact.

Or one can easily argue it is a case of trying to actually push for innovation and pushing the technological bounds. In the mid to late 90s, it was quite common to actually have a reason to upgrade your PC every other year or so (not that most of us did, but there was a reason to :p). Now? Buy a new compy every time a console comes out and you can basically guarnatee that you'll have no hardware requirements issues for half a decade. Because maybe the PC is "on the bleeding edge of technology", but nobody is really ON that edge. The devs are staying nice and safe so that they can be sure that their games can go cross-platform if needed. And the ones who AREN'T going cross-platform have to realize that pushing hardware reqs too far gets you labeled a "tech demo" like Crysis 1.

So by releasing a new Ouya every year, it gives developers a new target to push for. Play it safe with last year's model, or push the envelope for next year's? EIther way, this year's model can play both.

Do I think the ouya stands a chance/is a good idea? Not in the slightest. BUt this business model makes a lot of sense. Its the target demographic and the rationale behind the system that I find confusing.

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

Or one can easily argue it is a case of trying to actually push for innovation and pushing the technological bounds.

Wait, it was innovative to stick a phone into a console?

Yes, I remember the 90s and the upgrade treadmill. Despite having little money my dear old man used to upgrade fairly regularly (which was awesome because I got my own PC with regular upgrades!). This really went on into the 2000s until the 360/PS3 landed like you said. And you know what? It sucked. I just recently replaced my GTX570 not because it was slow, but because it died (cause undetermined, I'm blaming Nalano's rage). CPU and GPU upgrades have been dramatically slowed (I have no plans to upgrade my CPU for example, which was much harder to do back in the 90s or early 2000s). This is not necessarily a bad thing, I'm quite pleased that I'm not on an upgrade treadmill. Intel seems to have settled into this new setup with its "tic toc" release method.

Half a decade might be stretching things - in 2006 when the 360 came out a Core 2 Duo was the bee's knees, but by 2011 it was oudated. Same with how the 6600GT was the card to own in 2006 but struggled by 2011. I don't deny that "bleeding edge" doesn't mean quite so much as it did back in the day, but we do have the capacity to keep pushing beyond what consoles offer. I mean the current gen consoles aren't pushing games at 1920x1080 with SIX TRILLION x AA...

Originally Posted by gundato

So by releasing a new Ouya every year, it gives developers a new target to push for. Play it safe with last year's model, or push the envelope for next year's? EIther way, this year's model can play both.

Doesn't that just fragment things though? I thought the benefit of a console was that you'd target the platform and know that it works. That just seems to set everything up for obsolescence or turns the upgrades into pointless additions. They're trying to treat it like a PC when it isn't a PC.

Originally Posted by gundato

Do I think the ouya stands a chance/is a good idea? Not in the slightest.

No, that is pretty stupid. But a cheap platform that you upgrade regularly (while still costing about the same) is an interesting idea.

Yes, I remember the 90s and the upgrade treadmill. Despite having little money my dear old man used to upgrade fairly regularly (which was awesome because I got my own PC with regular upgrades!). This really went on into the 2000s until the 360/PS3 landed like you said. And you know what? It sucked. I just recently replaced my GTX570 not because it was slow, but because it died (cause undetermined, I'm blaming Nalano's rage). CPU and GPU upgrades have been dramatically slowed (I have no plans to upgrade my CPU for example, which was much harder to do back in the 90s or early 2000s). This is not necessarily a bad thing, I'm quite pleased that I'm not on an upgrade treadmill. Intel seems to have settled into this new setup with its "tic toc" release method.

There are advantages for both approaches. Looking at how much more expensive a PC is compared to any console, it kind of hurts that we don't really get "anything" for it. And one can easily argue that this lack of new tech is one of the causes of so many "samey" feeling games

I don't deny that "bleeding edge" doesn't mean quite so much as it did back in the day, but we do have the capacity to keep pushing beyond what consoles offer. I mean the current gen consoles aren't pushing games at 1920x1080 with SIX TRILLION x AA...

We have the capacity, but we aren't. At most, we get a bit nicer resolution and a higher FPS which isn't too noticeable in the grand scheme of things. And anyone who DOES push the envelope gets their game branded a "tech demo".

Doesn't that just fragment things though? I thought the benefit of a console was that you'd target the platform and know that it works. That just seems to set everything up for obsolescence or turns the upgrades into pointless additions. They're trying to treat it like a PC when it isn't a PC.

Not at all. Apple upgrades VERY regularly and has little to no fragmentation. The problem with Android is that Google updates the OS, but Samsung might not update the phone. And then T-Mobile might not push the update. Apple just says "Here is the firmware update" to everyone who can run it and "Piss off and buy a new phone" to the people who can't.

It is safe to assume that Ouya would be controlling the OS to at least ensure that every Ouya has the same version available (to whatever extent they can).

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.